• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • Probably

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • Probably not

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 28 65.1%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    43
If you read the discussion that's already occurred, you'll understand there have already been several substantive exchanges. If you don't feel that you have something to offer that might add to what's been said, I'm sure there is some other thread that might interests you more. But if you do have meaningful thoughts on the discussion, they're welcome. Make a decision anytime.



Feel free to specifically deny something I said. Any time. In fact, I'm straight-up daring you.



"He tortured and murdered people."


Who did he "tourture and murder"?
 
Do you know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE?

seriously? if you are going to insult me with your specious claims that I am "barking and frothing at the mouth" how about doing it with proper grammar

Awesome way to dodge what I said. Classy.
 
Last edited:
The point of this thread is that libertarian ideology is so easily puppeteered by people like Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

No, the point of this thread is to attack libertarian political philosophy without backing up any of the attack. Nothing presented here has backed your point. You've just made another troll libertarian attack thread with as little intellectual honesty or value as possible. Congrats.
 
"He tortured and murdered people."

Who did he "tourture and murder"?

I'll give you two names and two hard references, although I could give you hundreds. Bush admits to torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

George W. Bush Admits Torture, Says He Would 'Do It Again' | CommonDreams.org

Abu Zubayda's account of torture was confirmed by a CIA source.

Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side?By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)

As to the murders, the most concrete were two deaths under torture-interrogation. The ICRC (International Committee of The Red Cross) brought them to the attention of the CIA Inspector General, who wrote a classified report saying that the program under which they were interrogated was illegal, and that their deaths probably constituted war crimes. Dick Cheney summoned the report's author to a meeting, despite having no official authority over him or his agency, and the investigation was terminated shortly thereafter (ibid). There many other deaths under torture, but those were the most egregious, and went the furthest toward official recognition.

Now, will you acknowledge the simple human truth of these atrocities?
 
I'll give you two names and two hard references, although I could give you hundreds. Bush admits to torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

George W. Bush Admits Torture, Says He Would 'Do It Again' | CommonDreams.org

Abu Zubayda's account of torture was confirmed by a CIA source.

Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side?By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)

As to the murders, the most concrete were two deaths under torture-interrogation. The ICRC (International Committee of The Red Cross) brought them to the attention of the CIA Inspector General, who wrote a classified report saying that the program under which they were interrogated was illegal, and that their deaths probably constituted war crimes. Dick Cheney summoned the report's author to a meeting, despite having no official authority over him or his agency, and the investigation was terminated shortly thereafter (ibid). There many other deaths under torture, but those were the most egregious, and went the furthest toward official recognition.

Now, will you acknowledge the simple human truth of these atrocities?




***yawn*** So bush never tortured anyone. Thanks gotcha.... While you wine about the poor savages treatment, lets make sure you post some more asinine highly biased sources for your nonsense.
 
BTW, why is a thread on libertarian philosophy leading to fascism (which still hasn't been demonstrated, thanks for the useful thread) devolved into a Bush debate? Someone should at least try to stay on target with this horrible troll attack thread.
 
BTW, why is a thread on libertarian philosophy leading to fascism (which still hasn't been demonstrated, thanks for the useful thread) devolved into a Bush debate? Someone should at least try to stay on target with this horrible troll attack thread.


D00d with this guy everything is still about bush. :roll:
 
IIRC, it went something like...

Most libertarians supported Bush, despite him being a dirty thumping big-government type.

And, Bush is a (lying, torturing, murdering) fascist. Ergo...
 
Last edited:
IIRC, it went something like...

Most libertarians supported Bush, despite him being a dirty thumping big-government type.

And, Bush is a (lying, torturing, murdering) fascist. Ergo...

So you have nothing to support the claim. All we have is a "IIRC". I supported Bush during the primary and first election. 2 years into his first Presidency, he secured my move to the LP. He campaigned on a no nation building, smaller and responsible government platform which I liked. We got the opposite. There are not many libertarians who actually supported Bush. Some may have begrudgingly taken him over the alternatives (foolish if you ask me, the lesser of two evils is still evil), but none supported him fully. Not with interventionist wars and horrible power grabs like the Patriot Act.

So I suppose you can take your supposition and cram it with walnuts. Come back when y'all have some actual proof or at least a logical and sound argument.
 
I have met both types of self-identifying libertarians: Genuine libertarians with integrity, who stay true to their ideas of small government, no matter if the President expanding big government is named Bush or Obama, and people who call themselves "libertarian", but I don't seem to care about Bush's big government policies.

A good example for the former, who I really respect, are the guys at CATO Institute:

The Cato Institute

One of their guys has even written a book that's very critical of Republican big government:

Amazon.com: leviathan on the right

I found that book very enlightening. It did a good job of explaining how traditional small government-conservatism has been marginalized within the Republican party by neocons (whose roots even go back to Trotzkist communism) and theocons, who both favor big government policies. And it adds a lot to the credibility of genuine libertarians, IMHO -- when you are coherent to the ideals of small government, you cannot complain about Obama on one side, but ignore the Patriot Act, the expansion of the military and other big government policies, just because it were Republicans doing it, on the other side.

I have great respect for such genuine libertarians. But I think there are others who are not really libertarians, but rather partisan closet conservatives who have just chosen this label because it's en vogue.
 
Last edited:
I have met both types of self-identifying libertarians: Genuine libertarians with integrity, who stay true to their ideas of small government, no matter if the President expanding big government is named Bush or Obama, and people who call themselves "libertarian", but I don't seem to care about Bush's big government policies.

A good example for the former, who I really respect, are the guys at CATO Institute:

The Cato Institute

One of their guys has even written a book that's very critical of Republican big government:

Amazon.com: leviathan on the right

I found that book very enlightening. It did a good job of explaining how traditional small government-conservatism has been marginalized within the Republican party by neocons (whose roots even go back to Trotzkist communism) and theocons, who both favor big government policies. And it adds a lot to the credibility of genuine libertarians, IMHO -- when you are coherent to the ideals of small government, you cannot complain about Obama on one side, but ignore the Patriot Act, the expansion of the military and other big government policies, just because it were Republicans doing it, on the other side.

I have great respect for such genuine libertarians. But I think there are others who are not really libertarians, but rather partisan closet conservatives who have just chosen this label because it's en vogue.

Cato is probably one of the best institutions to draw policy from, but they generally get ignored or painted as some quasi Republican mouth piece, when that isn't true at all.


This reminds me, I want a Cato coffee cup for Christmas. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Word Origin & History

fascism

1922, originally used in English 1920 in its Italian form (see fascist). Applied to similar groups in Germany from 1923; applied to everyone since the rise of the Internet.
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source


Hmm, I voted no but I should have voted yes.

rand_paul_stomp-300x225.jpg
 
Last edited:
So you have nothing to support the claim. All we have is a "IIRC". I supported Bush during the primary and first election. 2 years into his first Presidency, he secured my move to the LP. He campaigned on a no nation building, smaller and responsible government platform which I liked. We got the opposite. There are not many libertarians who actually supported Bush. Some may have begrudgingly taken him over the alternatives (foolish if you ask me, the lesser of two evils is still evil), but none supported him fully. Not with interventionist wars and horrible power grabs like the Patriot Act.

So I suppose you can take your supposition and cram it with walnuts. Come back when y'all have some actual proof or at least a logical and sound argument.

I was summarizing someone else's argument that libertarianism leads to fascism.
 
I was summarizing someone else's argument that libertarianism leads to fascism.

Ahh, sorry. It's hard to tell in this thread as people are trying to pass off similar arguments as legitimate.
 
Does Troubadour inadvertently enable stupidity by continually making silly and absurd libertarian attack threads?

Been thinking on this a bit and I think the more we are talked about, the more legitimate the movement becomes.
It's kinda nice, when we have largely been left to obscurity.
 
I have to strongly disagree on that, given the levels at which they've supported Republican politics. While there was some principled (and largely perfunctory) opposition to George W. Bush's policies among libertarians, it seemed they considered low taxation a higher priority than protecting basic constitutional liberties. A man who literally defended his policies by citing the medieval Divine Right of Kings doctrine had very strong support among Small Government advocates.

Then allow me to rephrase: People who claim to support "small government," advocate lower taxes, and oppose public spending on infrastructure and social programs overwhelmingly supported George W. Bush...

And how many of those guns would side with tyranny if it promised them tax cuts and the eradication of social programs? If it called itself a "small government" committed to "free enterprise" and insisted that its atrocities were merely "defending America against Socialists"? Given what I saw during the Bush years, something tells me it's more likely those guns would remain in their cabinets, if not be volunteered in service to "eradicate the plague of Socialism."

He tortured and murdered people, built torture camps, engaged in a treasonous conspiracy to invade a country that hadn't attacked us, spent a trillion dollars conquering and destroying that country, got tens of thousands of people killed (and hundreds of thousand indirectly through the chaos that ensued), turned the United States into a global pariah, conspired with dictators against foreign democracies, did nothing while an American city was destroyed and then left it to rot, hired prostitutes and actors to pose as reporters and praise him during press conferences, removed embarrassing remarks from official transcripts, enforced a five-mile-wide protest-free zone around himself, forced people to make personal loyalty oaths to him if they wanted to talk to him, falsified government documents as a matter of routine, shrouded the entire government in secrecy, had the Department of Homeland Security investigating his opponents, ignored subpoenas, and for all intents and purposes declared himself Emperor.

So no, Turtle, George W. Bush was not "better than the alternatives" by any stretch of even the most twisted imagination - he was a savagely Orwellian, murdering liar, and Republicans preferred and still prefer him over his opponents because he cut their taxes. That's it. He paid them off. They sold their country for a tax cut, and will do it again at the first opportunity. The Republican Party is no longer American in any way, shape, or form. It is a treasonous, seditious pustule consisting of people who are only in it for themselves alone, and willing to subject their own children to a hellish future for the immediate illusion of personal wealth. That anyone would say mass-murder, torture, and the elimination of the 4th Amendment was preferrable to tax increases is beyond unconscionable. You should be ashamed to even imply such things.

The point of this thread is that libertarian ideology is so easily puppeteered by people like Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

Tell him to shove walnuts, he made the thread/argument - not me.

x-post: No problem, I just wanted to make clear the "evidence" being used by the OP.
 
Last edited:
No, the point of this thread is to attack libertarian political philosophy without backing up any of the attack. Nothing presented here has backed your point. You've just made another troll libertarian attack thread with as little intellectual honesty or value as possible. Congrats.

I think I've made some pretty rigorous arguments, so either you must have simply ignored them or you're looking for something more. What more would you like?

D00d with this guy everything is still about bush. :roll:

No, only things that actually are. But you make it increasingly clear that with you, nothing is about anything. You haven't listened to a word I've said, you asked questions whose answers you didn't want to hear, and then you made unbelievably stupid, flippant remarks about war crimes as if you were talking about sports or pop culture. There is a serious reality deficit going on in your comments. Be a substantive contributor to this discussion or not, it's your choice.

IIRC, it went something like...

Most libertarians supported Bush, despite him being a dirty thumping big-government type.

And, Bush is a (lying, torturing, murdering) fascist. Ergo...

More or less, although the size of government is irrelevant. Bush could have been a lying, torturing, murdering fascist with a balanced budget and a flat tax - these things are just funding mechanisms, and have nothing to do with what powers a government asserts. Police in some socialist European countries are not even allowed to pat down criminal suspects without a warrant, IIRC.

I have met both types of self-identifying libertarians: Genuine libertarians with integrity, who stay true to their ideas of small government, no matter if the President expanding big government is named Bush or Obama, and people who call themselves "libertarian", but I don't seem to care about Bush's big government policies.

I've had many discussions with "genuine" libertarians, and even they often reveal warped priorities by how they address the issue. One gets the distinct impression that they don't see a greater freedom imperative in preventing torture and military aggression than avoiding tax increases, so they say things like "Bush was a big government leader too" or "Bush was just as bad as (insert Democrat)." Hearing such things, I'm not exactly filled with confidence that these people would be highly motivated to defend their country against a tyrant who was solidly on board with their views on taxation. They probably wouldn't support a leader like that, but when taxes aren't part of the equation, it's as if the whole thing becomes academic to them. So on the one hand we can reasonably say the "fake" libertarians would probably be on board with a fascist leader who adopted their rhetoric, and the "real" ones would mostly be ambivalent rather than determinedly opposed. I see my basic thesis as being strengthened.

Cato is probably one of the best institutions to draw policy from, but they generally get ignored or painted as some quasi Republican mouth piece, when that isn't true at all.

I wouldn't characterize Cato as quasi-Republican. They are definitely rigorously ideological - almost to the point of religious - in their application of libertarian articles of faith in formulating economic positions. However, while the sincerity of their members might not be in question, their funding base includes a number of powerful, predatory corporations, so we basically have True Believers being wielded as weapons by the most cynical of interests. As for their output, it's typically on a level that would literally be laughed out of a 1st-year economics course, but is usually presented as the august word of experts because of the money behind them. They speak through the lens of "Laffer Curve reality," where zero taxation would equal infinite revenue. So it's not really a think tank - not much thinking can go on when your conclusions are predetermined - but more of a libertarian monastery.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't characterize Cato as quasi-Republican. They are definitely rigorously ideological - almost to the point of religious - in their application of libertarian articles of faith in formulating economic positions. However, while the sincerity of their members might not be in question, their funding base includes a number of powerful, predatory corporations, so we basically have True Believers being wielded as weapons by the most cynical of interests. As for their output, it would often literally be laughed out of a 1st-year economics course, but is typically presented as the august word of experts because of the money behind them. They speak through the lens of "Laffer Curve reality," where zero taxation would equal infinite revenue. So it's not really a think tank - not much thinking can go on when your conclusions are predetermined - but more of a libertarian monastery.

Umm first of all, one of the defining characteristics of being libertarian, is that is doesn't just stop at the ballot box but it is a pathway to walk.
Your life is changed in total because of the belief system.

No one believes that zero taxation brings in revenue, but of course I rarely if ever see anyone try to "debunk" there economic policy suggestions.
It's definitely a think tank, much like that of the Brookings Institute.
Both, in my mind, are high quality institutions of information.
 
from Harry G.


Umm first of all, one of the defining characteristics of being libertarian, is that is doesn't just stop at the ballot box but it is a pathway to walk.
Your life is changed in total because of the belief system.

And based on election results in cycle after cycle, it does begin at the ballot box either. In fact, the ballot box rarely gets used by Libertarians at all. Either that or they could hold their conventions in the old phone booths that Clark Kent used to change in.

Your are very right to call it a BELIEF SYSTEM. It has much in common with other beliefs. The ones that come to mind right away are faeries, unicorns and the Easter Bunny. You believe simply because you want to believe.
 
I often don't agree with the propositions from CATO, but they at least have integrity when it comes to small government values. Personally, I am a bit too convinced of the necessity of redistribution to be a libertarian myself, but I think they are spot on on some topics, and I'm glad they at least exist.

As for the fascism argument: As I explained above, I don't think libertarian ideology has anything to do with fascism. In fact, there could hardly be a less fascist ideology. But I do see the danger that expanding markets, with the side effect of allowing inequality to increase and democratic participation to be curbed, has the unwanted side effect of turning more people towards demagoguery. That can be fascist demagoguery, communism or anything else. In these regards, maybe you can say that implementation of libertarian free market ideas has the side effect of pushing more people in the arms of demagogues, although this is the exact opposite of what libertarians intend. I see that danger.
 
And based on election results in cycle after cycle, it does begin at the ballot box either. In fact, the ballot box rarely gets used by Libertarians at all. Either that or they could hold their conventions in the old phone booths that Clark Kent used to change in.

That is to be expected.

While many libertarians have an emotional attachment to their beliefs, the beliefs themselves are derived from logical and analytical thinking.
Where as most others derive their beliefs, from the more common, emotional decision making.


Your are very right to call it a BELIEF SYSTEM. It has much in common with other beliefs. The ones that come to mind right away are faeries, unicorns and the Easter Bunny. You believe simply because you want to believe.

Every political system, is a belief system.

As to the latter comment, it's funny to me, that most of our harshest critics use ridicule and hyperbole to describe us.
I guess straight up fact based arguments aren't as effective. ;)
 
I often don't agree with the propositions from CATO, but they at least have integrity when it comes to small government values. Personally, I am a bit too convinced of the necessity of redistribution to be a libertarian myself, but I think they are spot on on some topics, and I'm glad they at least exist.

As for the fascism argument: As I explained above, I don't think libertarian ideology has anything to do with fascism. In fact, there could hardly be a less fascist ideology. But I do see the danger that expanding markets, with the side effect of allowing inequality to increase and democratic participation to be curbed, has the unwanted side effect of turning more people towards demagoguery. That can be fascist demagoguery, communism or anything else. In these regards, maybe you can say that implementation of libertarian free market ideas has the side effect of pushing more people in the arms of demagogues, although this is the exact opposite of what libertarians intend. I see that danger.

I think the common beliefs that markets naturally create monopolies and giant firms, is misplaced.
That is where a lot of people seem to have problems with freer market ideology.

When we examine firms, we come to find that a lot/most of their "giantness" is stemmed from government favor and not from the natural growth of the firm itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom